DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment/response filed 01/06/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 11, and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-13, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko (US 2024/0290029) in view of Aguera y Arcas (US 2004/0233219) and Chui (US 2002/0018072).
Regarding claim 1, Ignatchenko teaches/suggests: A computer-implemented method, performed by at least one processor (Ignatchenko Fig. 1: processor 112), the method comprising:
receiving a second model input, at a client device, wherein the second model input is a representation of the asset at a highest level of detail (Ignatchenko [0039] “generating a rendering of the three-dimensional model in a predefined scene using an original model (or the original three-dimensional art) for the three-dimensional model” [The original model meets the second model input.]);
analyzing the second model input (Ignatchenko [0019] “LOD generation component 116 may be configured to generate LODs to be used to render computer-generated three-dimensional models ... generate an LOD based on an original three-dimensional model” [Generating the LOD based on the original model meets the analyzing.]);
identifying a set of parameters based on the analyzing (Ignatchenko [0019] “generate an LOD based on an original three-dimensional model … the original three-dimensional model may include one or more meshes and/or textures used to render the three-dimensional model” [The meshes/textures meet the set of parameters; generating the LOD based on the original model meets the identifying.]);
generating a plurality of models representing the asset with intermediate levels of detail based on the set of parameters (Ignatchenko [0019] “LOD generation component 116 may be configured to generate LODs to be used to render computer-generated three-dimensional models” [0003] “Different LODs of the same three-dimensional object may have a different number of triangles/vertices, and different resolutions and/or image quality of the textures”),
displaying, at the client device, a model from the plurality of models based on a proximity of the asset from a viewpoint of a user in a virtual environment (Ignatchenko [0019] “LOD generation component 116 may be configured to generate a lower LOD for the digital asset depicted at a larger distance from the camera or viewpoint”).
Ignatchenko further teaches/suggests a first model input, wherein the first model input is a representation of an asset at a lowest level of detail (Ignatchenko [0038] “the minimum LOD for a three-dimensional model may be generated based on the original three-dimensional model”). Ignatchenko does not teach/suggest:
receiving a first model input and a second model input;
analyzing the first model input and the second model input;
determining a set of cost values for the set of parameters;
wherein each of the plurality of models is associated with a cost sum, and the cost sums of the plurality of models are based on the number of models;
Aguera y Arcas, however, teaches/suggests:
receiving a first model input and a second model input (Aguera y Arcas [0007] “the system interpolates between the LODs and displays a resulting image at a desired resolution”);
analyzing the first model input and the second model input (Aguera y Arcas [0007] “the system interpolates between the LODs and displays a resulting image at a desired resolution” [The interpolating meets the analyzing.]);
determining a set of cost values for the set of parameters (Aguera y Arcas [0060] “The opacity can be expressed as a weight between 0.0 and 1.0, and the sum of all the LOD weights at each vertex should therefore be 1.0” [The weights meet the set of cost values.]);
wherein each of the plurality of models is associated with a cost sum, and the cost sums of the plurality of models are based on the number of models (Aguera y Arcas [0007] “the system interpolates between the LODs and displays a resulting image at a desired resolution” [0060] “The opacity can be expressed as a weight between 0.0 and 1.0, and the sum of all the LOD weights at each vertex should therefore be 1.0”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the interpolation of Aguera y Arcas) for another (the extrapolation of Ignatchenko) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely to generate intermediate LODs.
Ignatchenko and Aguera y Arcas are silent regarding a number of models is based on differences between the first model input and the second model input. Chui, however, teaches/suggests a number of models is based on differences between the first model input and the second model input (Chui [0110] “The number of resolution levels stored in an image file will depend on the size of the highest resolution representation of the image and the minimum acceptable resolution for the thumbnail image at the lowest resolution level”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of the intermediate LODs of Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas to depend on the minimum LOD and the original model as taught/suggested by Chui for storage.
Regarding claim 2, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of models comprises a different level of detail (Ignatchenko [0003] “Different LODs of the same three-dimensional object may have a different number of triangles/vertices, and different resolutions and/or image quality of the textures”).
Regarding claim 3, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating includes interpolating between the first model input and the second model input (Aguera y Arcas [0007] “the system interpolates between the LODs and displays a resulting image at a desired resolution”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the proximity of the asset from the viewpoint of the user in the virtual environment (Ignatchenko [0019] “LOD generation component 116 may be configured to generate a lower LOD for the digital asset depicted at a larger distance from the camera or viewpoint”); and
selecting at least one of the plurality of models based on the proximity (Ignatchenko [0019] “LOD generation component 116 may be configured to generate LODs to be used to render computer-generated three-dimensional models … generate a lower LOD for the digital asset depicted at a larger distance from the camera or viewpoint”).
Regarding claim 5, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of models are displayed in an order with descending or ascending level of detail based on a direction of movement of the asset in the virtual environment (Ignatchenko [0019] “LOD generation component 116 may be configured to generate LODs to be used to render computer-generated three-dimensional models” [0003] “A lower or minimized LOD may also be used when the object appears further away from the camera within a virtual environment. In contrast, a higher LOD may be needed as the distance between the user and the object decreases”).
Regarding claim 9, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of parameters include a first set of parameters from the first model input and a second set of parameters from the second model input, parameters in the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters including at least a polygon count, resolution value, and number of vertices identified in the first model input and the second model input (Ignatchenko [0003] “Different LODs of the same three-dimensional object may have a different number of triangles/vertices, and different resolutions and/or image quality of the textures” Aguera y Arcas [0007] “the system interpolates between the LODs and displays a resulting image at a desired resolution”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claims 11-13 and 17 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 2-4 and 9, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui further teaches/suggests one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions (Ignatchenko Fig. 1: processor 112 and instructions 114).
Claims 19 and 20 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 2 and 4, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui further teaches/suggests a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon (Ignatchenko Fig. 1: instructions 114).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko (US 2024/0290029) in view of Aguera y Arcas (US 2004/0233219) and Chui (US 2002/0018072) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Collet Romea et al. (US 2017/0018111).
Regarding claim 6, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui does not teach/suggest: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an area of importance for the asset based on the first model input, the second model input, and the set of parameters; and
generating the plurality of models with the area of importance preserved in level of detail.
Collet Romea, in view of Ignatchenko and Aguera y Arcas, teaches/suggests:
determining an area of importance for the asset (Collet Romea [0004] “When the scene is reduced in detail before rendering, details are preserved for those visual elements that have been assigned an elevated importance value”) based on the first model input, the second model input, and the set of parameters (Ignatchenko [0003] “Different LODs of the same three-dimensional object may have a different number of triangles/vertices, and different resolutions and/or image quality of the textures” Aguera y Arcas [0007] “the system interpolates between the LODs and displays a resulting image at a desired resolution”); and
generating the plurality of models with the area of importance preserved in level of detail (Aguera y Arcas [0007] “the system interpolates between the LODs and displays a resulting image at a desired resolution” Collet Romea [0063] “those patterns and characteristics can also be preserved during the LOD reduction”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate LODs of Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui such that visual elements are assigned an importance value as taught/suggested by Collet Romea to preserve such details.
Regarding claim 7, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui does not teach/suggest: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying features of the asset from at least one of the first model input and the second model input; and
assigning a weight to each of the features based on a level of detail associated with each of the features,
wherein the plurality of models are generated based on weights of the features.
Collet Romea, however, teaches/suggests:
identifying features of the asset from at least one of the first model input and the second model input (Collet Romea [0004] “When the scene is reduced in detail before rendering, details are preserved for those visual elements that have been assigned an elevated importance value”); and
assigning a weight to each of the features based on a level of detail associated with each of the features (Collet Romea [0004] “This may be performed by applying the importance function as a weighting value to each element of the 3D scene in which the likelihood that any particular detail will be discarded by way of simplification varies inversely with the importance function value of that element”),
wherein the plurality of models are generated based on weights of the features (Collet Romea [0063] “those patterns and characteristics can also be preserved during the LOD reduction”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein.
Claims 14 and 15 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 6 and 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko (US 2024/0290029) in view of Aguera y Arcas (US 2004/0233219) and Chui (US 2002/0018072) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2023/0316658).
Regarding claim 8, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui does not teach/suggest: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the asset is at least one of an avatar or an apparel of the avatar. Smith, however, teaches/suggests an avatar (Smith [0046] “Display 242 of electronic device 200 may also include an avatar 226 corresponding to user 232”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital assets of Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui to include the avatar of Smith to represent the user.
Claim 16 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 8, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko (US 2024/0290029) in view of Aguera y Arcas (US 2004/0233219) and Chui (US 2002/0018072) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Schumann et al. (US 2023/0274493) and Jones et al. (US 2012/0095945).
Regarding claim 10, Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui does not teach/suggest: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a number of intermediate models for the asset given the first model input and the second model input based on a complexity of the asset; and
generating the plurality of models based on the number of intermediate models, a number of models included in the plurality of models corresponding to the number of intermediate models.
Schumann, however, teaches/suggests:
determining a number of intermediate models for the asset given the first model input and the second model input based on a complexity of the asset (Schumann [0107] “depending on the size and complexity of the underlying data, a small amount of LOD levels like four or seven is already sufficient”); and
generating the plurality of models based on the number of intermediate models, a number of models included in the plurality of models corresponding to the number of intermediate models (Schumann [0107] “depending on the size and complexity of the underlying data, a small amount of LOD levels like four or seven is already sufficient”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of the intermediate LODs of Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas and Chui to be determined based on the underlying data as taught/suggested by Schumann to be sufficient.
Schumann is silent regarding based on a platform of the virtual environment. Jones, in view of Schumann, teaches/suggests based on a platform of the virtual environment (Schumann [0107] “depending on the size and complexity of the underlying data, a small amount of LOD levels like four or seven is already sufficient” Jones [0048] “The user execution environment resources are dependent upon the platform from which an application is invoked ... a server instance may render a scene and only transmit resulting imagery to the client at a resolution or level of detail corresponding to the limited amount of processing power available at the client”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of the LODs of Ignatchenko as modified by Aguera y Arcas, Chui, and Schumann to be further determined based on the platform as taught/suggested by Jones because of the amount of processing power.
Claim 18 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 10, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2014/0270374 – number of levels determines max/min resolutions
US 2016/0364899 – mipmaps
US 2017/0186137 – progressive images based on image features
US 2021/0358216 – dynamically generated geometry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619